The Eigth Continent "Hawaii"

[DValdron]

of course, that might be iffy, if the interior is dry and semi-arid; rather different than what the Polynesians are used to... and of course, you have the usual wars and disease to slow down population growth a bit. I think you'd have an initial burst of population growth, until the limits of Polynesian agriculture are reached. 150 million seems like a lot for a pre-industrial small continent that is either tropical or arid...

Throw in a few more generations, and you'd have a population over 6 billion. But that's with unlimited expansion.

Assuming a consistent neolithic technology of the Polynesians, no new crops or domesticated animals, and a small continent which is 3/4 arid, I'd say that a realistic population might be anywhere from 2 to 20 million.

A lot depends on the biological heritage.

But then, there's a lot of variables. An active Polynesian culture might well have enough cultural contact with Southeast Asia to successfully import new crops and domestic animals, and to move up to metallurgy. So you might get a stable population more or less equivalent to those in Asia. 20 to 50 million perhaps, depending on the extent of the productive regions.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Throw in a few more generations, and you'd have a population over 6 billion. But that's with unlimited expansion.

Assuming a consistent neolithic technology of the Polynesians, no new crops or domesticated animals, and a small continent which is 3/4 arid, I'd say that a realistic population might be anywhere from 2 to 20 million.

A lot depends on the biological heritage.

But then, there's a lot of variables. An active Polynesian culture might well have enough cultural contact with Southeast Asia to successfully import new crops and domestic animals, and to move up to metallurgy. So you might get a stable population more or less equivalent to those in Asia. 20 to 50 million perhaps, depending on the extent of the productive regions.

You are aware that the continent stretches south all the way past the equator? Look at the map. The equatorial regions typically have a rainforest belt, much like exists in the Amazon rainforest. Africa has it as does South America. Beyond a certain distance from the equator the climate gets drier and more arid as the Saraha desert does north of the equator and the Serengetti does to the south of it. North of the Destert band you have more tropical forests, followed by subtropics and a temperate zone, which I believe is where Midway stands.

 

[Penelope]

You are aware that the continent stretches south all the way past the equator? Look at the map. The equatorial regions typically have a rainforest belt, much like exists in the Amazon rainforest. Africa has it as does South America. Beyond a certain distance from the equator the climate gets drier and more arid as the Saraha desert does north of the equator and the Serengetti does to the south of it. North of the Destert band you have more tropical forests, followed by subtropics and a temperate zone, which I believe is where Midway stands.

Well, if we are going by your map.

I think my map is a more accurate representation of what it would look like, since it would have had to break off of Asia to get where it is with biological diversity. The archepilago to the east is the remnant of it's connection to Asia, and the mountains to the west would be rapidly forming as Hawaii smashed up against either the Pacific Plate or the North American plate.

 

[DValdron]

It's very nice and all that the continent stretches past the Equator. I did notice that, and mentioned that it would muck up both North and South Equatorial Currents as well as the Equatorial Counter Current.

But there isn't actually a rule that Equatorial regions have to be a tropical rainforest. Tropical rainforests are a function of... well... rain. Rain is a function in part of geography.

You'll get tropical rainforests on the East Coast, but that's about it. You want more, you're going to have to revisit your geography.

Speaking of which, SciFiGuy has a revised map, do you endorse it?

 

[Penelope]

My map, updated with hypothetical labels.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

It's very nice and all that the continent stretches past the Equator. I did notice that, and mentioned that it would muck up both North and South Equatorial Currents as well as the Equatorial Counter Current.

But there isn't actually a rule that Equatorial regions have to be a tropical rainforest. Tropical rainforests are a function of... well... rain. Rain is a function in part of geography.

You'll get tropical rainforests on the East Coast, but that's about it. You want more, you're going to have to revisit your geography.

Speaking of which, SciFiGuy has a revised map, do you endorse it?

I like it!
Its much more interesting than my map to tell you honestly, has a more interesting coastline, more protected shorelines, while mine was just a crude sketch on a scanned in map.
Yeah, lets go with the SciFiGuy's map.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

My map, updated with hypothetical labels.

View attachment 77536

Hawaii's history in story and legend is ancient and proud, dating back at least a thousand years before American colonies became a nation in 1776. It is highly unlikely that the exact date when Polynesian people first set foot on these previously uninhabited islands will ever be known, nor much details about events occurring between that date and the first contact with Europeans.

The Hawaiians were a people without writing, who preserved their history in chants and legends. Much of the early history has disappeared with the death of the kahunas and other learned men whose function it was to pass on this knowledge, by means of chants and legends, to succeeding generations.

Modern Hawaiian history begins on January 20, 1778, when Captain James Cook's expedition made its first contact with the Hawaiian people on the islands of Kauai and Niihau. Captain Cook was not the first man to "discover" the Hawaiian Islands. He was the first known European to arrive.

The language of Hawaii and archaeological discoveries indicate that Hawaii was settled by two distinct waves of Polynesian migration. Cook himself knew that the original Polynesian discoverers had come from the South Pacific hundreds of years before his time. First, from the Marquesas, came a settlement as early as 600 or 700 AD, and then from the Society Islands, another migration about 1100 AD. Lacking instruments of navigation or charts or any kind, the Polynesians sailed into vast oceans. They staked their knowledge of the sky and its stars, the sea and its currents, the flight of birds and many other natural signs. They were superior seamen of their time.

 

[Penelope]

Hmm.. I'm guessing that the Europeans might discover it as early as the mid to late 1500s, due to it's size. Hell, they might even discover it before the New World is, or, atleast a part of it.

I'm guessing that the first place to be discovered will be "Yorkshire Isle", or the Number 2 on the map. It might be sometime before they discover the mainland, as the sea would probably be quite rugged around Hawaiian Shores. The Continent would right where Pacific Typhoons form, and it's eastern shore would extend about to where Pacific Hurricanes dissapate.

The Typhoons would probably be boxed in between the Western Shore of Hawaii, and China and Japan. That would probably make it fiarly impossible to traverse the waters between China and Hawaii during the summer and fall months. The same will likely occur with the Pacific Hurricanes aswell.

 

[DValdron]

Hawaii's history in story and legend is ancient and proud, dating back at least a thousand years before American colonies became a nation in 1776. It is highly unlikely that the exact date when Polynesian people first set foot on these previously uninhabited islands will ever be known, nor much details about events occurring between that date and the first contact with Europeans.

The Hawaiians were a people without writing, who preserved their history in chants and legends. Much of the early history has disappeared with the death of the kahunas and other learned men whose function it was to pass on this knowledge, by means of chants and legends, to succeeding generations.

Modern Hawaiian history begins on January 20, 1778, when Captain James Cook's expedition made its first contact with the Hawaiian people on the islands of Kauai and Niihau. Captain Cook was not the first man to "discover" the Hawaiian Islands. He was the first known European to arrive.

The language of Hawaii and archaeological discoveries indicate that Hawaii was settled by two distinct waves of Polynesian migration. Cook himself knew that the original Polynesian discoverers had come from the South Pacific hundreds of years before his time. First, from the Marquesas, came a settlement as early as 600 or 700 AD, and then from the Society Islands, another migration about 1100 AD. Lacking instruments of navigation or charts or any kind, the Polynesians sailed into vast oceans. They staked their knowledge of the sky and its stars, the sea and its currents, the flight of birds and many other natural signs. They were superior seamen of their time.

Uh uh. Your timeline for discovery is much earlier. Take a look at Sci Fi Guy's map, and see how close it is to Samoa, the birthplace of the Polynesians, and to Tuotmoa or Tuvalu. It's also close to the Micronesian territories. So its likely discovered and colonized early in the Polynesian expansions. Perhaps as early as 2000 years ago.

 

[DValdron]

"West Caribbean"? The Caribbean was originally known as the West Indies, named after the 'East Indies' or 'Indonesia.' So really, the 'West Caribbean' would be the West West Indies, or possibly the East West Indies. Or East Indonesia.

Forgive me, I'm being silly.

From what I recall of trading routes, European discovery is unlikely. At best, if Hawaii was well known to China and Southeast Asia, it would be a rumoured land. But most of the trade opportunities were with India and Southeast Asia, and indirectly China. Australia, much nearer, really wasn't discovered by anyone until the Europeans came sailing along.

Looking at Sci Fi Guy's map, it looks like there's a very impressive mountain range in the Hawaiians. The overall shape of the continents suggests that there may be a rather large river drainage basin behind those mountains. So you may well get a lot of rain forest and less arid country than originally inferred.

 

[Penelope]

A few points.

-What kind of Culture would the Native Hawaiians have?

-What would the first European Power to discover and colonize Hawaii be?

-How would this affect major wars, like the Pacific War in WW2.

-Would any major superpowers arise in the modern day from Hawaii?

 

[Penelope]

"West Caribbean"? The Caribbean was originally known as the West Indies, named after the 'East Indies' or 'Indonesia.' So really, the 'West Caribbean' would be the West West Indies, or possibly the East West Indies. Or East Indonesia.

Forgive me, I'm being silly.

From what I recall of trading routes, European discovery is unlikely. At best, if Hawaii was well known to China and Southeast Asia, it would be a rumoured land. But most of the trade opportunities were with India and Southeast Asia, and indirectly China. Australia, much nearer, really wasn't discovered by anyone until the Europeans came sailing along.

Looking at Sci Fi Guy's map, it looks like there's a very impressive mountain range in the Hawaiians. The overall shape of the continents suggests that there may be a rather large river drainage basin behind those mountains. So you may well get a lot of rain forest and less arid country than originally inferred.

Heh. I was reaching a bit for the Island names, other than Midway and Muu.

If the Europeans ever get up a good trade route with the Indians, like in OTL, there could be some discovery of the outer islands.

Yes, I was thinking about a very volcanically active Eastern Shore, most of the eastern region would be much like the islands are today, volcanic, fairly warm. The Western Region would be, a you suggested, very wet and lush. Economically, the Eastern Region would be used for mining and military bases, while the West is mainly comprised of agricultural city-states.

 

[DValdron]

A few points.

-What kind of Culture would the Native Hawaiians have?

Given the Polynesian history that we have, I would assume leapfrogging shoreline colonization, moving inland, and the formation of organized communities moving towards City states and then more formal states. It's too big for any single state to really predominate in the time available, and I'd bet the interior would be largely thinly populated. I'd say we'd see something similar to India or Indonesia, lots of states and principalities.

My Empire of Mu timeline deals with a similar Polynesian civilisation, but its geography gives it a head start of up to 1500 to 2000 years, which allows for the unification of the continent well before Europeans come along.

How big and how organized the Hawaiin polities are will depend a lot on the amount of contact and cultural diffusion with Southeast Asia. I'm willing to bet that there will be some contact, and likely some transmission of things like metallurgy, plants, animals, writing, etc.

-What would the first European Power to discover and colonize Hawaii be?

Likely discoverers and explorers would be the Dutch, British and French in that order, through successive expeditions. Most likely the British would be the ones to define all the shorelines. But the Dutch are likely to find it first.

The Spanish or Portugese might encounter the most westerly outlying Islands, but unless there's real commercial potential, aren't likely to explore pointlessly.

As for colonization, a lot depends on circumstance. The British hold over India was an incremental and peacemeal thing. The same thing with the Dutch in Indonesia. The French were involved with Asia for centuries before they started taking over Indochina in the 19th century.

Given a non-unified polyglot of Post-Polynesian states, we might see different Colonial powers moving into Hawaii at different times.

Comparing it to Southeast Asia, we might see the easterly Islands nearest the Phillipines and Indonesia coming under the influence of Portugal. The Portugese are displaced by the Dutch a century later. The Dutch in turn find their position eroded by the English and French, all dealing with nominally independent states and city states.

In the 19th century, there's a European scramble for colonies. Russia gets involved in the north. Portugal and the Netherlands hold onto relic slices. France, Britain, Germany, Japan and the United States control territories directly. There's a struggle for the thinly populated Interior. A few of the more advanced states maintain their independence.

-How would this affect major wars, like the Pacific War in WW2.

It would undoubtedly be a theatre of war.

-Would any major superpowers arise in the modern day from Hawaii?

Not without some sort of unification, and this is unlikely given the timeline.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Given the Polynesian history that we have, I would assume leapfrogging shoreline colonization, moving inland, and the formation of organized communities moving towards City states and then more formal states. It's too big for any single state to really predominate in the time available, and I'd bet the interior would be largely thinly populated. I'd say we'd see something similar to India or Indonesia, lots of states and principalities.

My Empire of Mu timeline deals with a similar Polynesian civilisation, but its geography gives it a head start of up to 1500 to 2000 years, which allows for the unification of the continent well before Europeans come along.

How big and how organized the Hawaiin polities are will depend a lot on the amount of contact and cultural diffusion with Southeast Asia. I'm willing to bet that there will be some contact, and likely some transmission of things like metallurgy, plants, animals, writing, etc.



Likely discoverers and explorers would be the Dutch, British and French in that order, through successive expeditions. Most likely the British would be the ones to define all the shorelines. But the Dutch are likely to find it first.

The Spanish or Portugese might encounter the most westerly outlying Islands, but unless there's real commercial potential, aren't likely to explore pointlessly.

As for colonization, a lot depends on circumstance. The British hold over India was an incremental and peacemeal thing. The same thing with the Dutch in Indonesia. The French were involved with Asia for centuries before they started taking over Indochina in the 19th century.

Given a non-unified polyglot of Post-Polynesian states, we might see different Colonial powers moving into Hawaii at different times.

Comparing it to Southeast Asia, we might see the easterly Islands nearest the Phillipines and Indonesia coming under the influence of Portugal. The Portugese are displaced by the Dutch a century later. The Dutch in turn find their position eroded by the English and French, all dealing with nominally independent states and city states.

In the 19th century, there's a European scramble for colonies. Russia gets involved in the north. Portugal and the Netherlands hold onto relic slices. France, Britain, Germany, Japan and the United States control territories directly. There's a struggle for the thinly populated Interior. A few of the more advanced states maintain their independence.

-How would this affect major wars, like the Pacific War in WW2.

It would undoubtedly be a theatre of war.



Not without some sort of unification, and this is unlikely given the timeline.

Why not? Austrailia was unified under the British, who's to say Hawaii couldn't be unified as well? Cook discovered it after all.

 

[DValdron]

Why not? Austrailia was unified under the British, who's to say Hawaii couldn't be unified as well? Cook discovered it after all.

Australia was an unorganized territory occupied by neolithic technology aboriginals who were relatively easily displaced.

That's not going to be the case here. The population has agriculture, settled communities and a high degree of social organisation, capable of warfare and armed resistance. The population density is going to be many times greater.

Britain could pretty much take the whole of Australia because the place was so valueless no one else really wanted it, and the indigenous population was easy to shunt aside. Even so, the British couldn't find any better use for the place than as a penal colony, initially.

In the case of the Hawaii continent however, the population density is going to be much greater and the population is going to be more organized, and they'll have the advantage of a lot of coastline, a lot of population, and defense in depth. This is not likely to be a situation where the Europeans simply take over and displace the original population.

Hell, that didn't happen on the existing Polynesia of our time line. Polynesians population, language and culture continued to predominate locally, even under European colonial domination. Europeans could do little more than impose rule, and even that was contested locally.

Here, instead of scattered islands, you have an entire populated continent. That's a lot tougher to conquer, and even more difficult to colonize. Not unless you're assuming that the native population is even more vulnerable to disease than the American Indians.

The most likely model for European involvement would probably be India/South-East Asia. Peacemeal alliances with local states and city states, trading concessions and monopolies, Europeans taking different sides in local wars, lots of European weapons and technology shipped in.

India/South-East Asia found the first the Portugese and Dutch then the British and French duking it out in India, with the British being the ultimate winners, and the French and Portugese retaining enclaves. The Portugese and Dutch duking it out in Indonesia, with the Dutch winning out and the Portugese, British and Germans carving out little enclaves. The French dominating in Indochina. Spain in the Phillipines. Britatin in Australia. And China being a free for all.

It's possible that a single European power would dominate Hawaii. However, keep in mind that Hawaii's likely going to be a distant third on the list of colonial priorities. The first was India/Indonesia, in the 17th and 18th century. The second was China in the 18th and 19th centuries. Given its distance and relatively low (likely) economic value you'd likely see something more like the scramble for Africa or the Pacific in the late 19th century.

Even if only a single colonial power rules, and its not clear or guaranteed that the Europeans would successfully take over, the pre-existing divisions are such that there's a good chance of fracture. After all, the Middle East, India and Africa all broke into a multitude of states, when they were originally contiguous colonial territories.

 

[DValdron]

There's really only two ways that you'd get a unified Hawaii.

One is if the native Hawaiins got it together to create a unified state/empire, as happened with China, Persia, Ethiopia, etc. before the Europeans arrived.

Given the available time, I think that's probably unlikely.

The other is a single European power that administers the entire place as a single unit - a la the Spanish in the Phillipines or the Dutch in Indonesia or the Belgians in Africa, Portubgal in Brazil.

But this place is bigger than any of those (except possibly Brazil, which was mostly empty rainforest). To give you examples - France ruled a contiguous chunk of West Africa which encompassed a third of a Continent. The outcome was not a single African superstate, but a lot of little states. This was the result of different histories, different administrative arrangements, and ultimately break up into multiple states.

Britain once ruled a contiguous chunk of Africa from Cape town to Cairo. Again, no superstate. Britain ruled the Indian subcontinent - which produced India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Burma. French Indochina broke into two vietnams and Laos and Cambodia. The British middle east fragmented into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel/Palestine. Spain ruled from Tierra Del Fuego to California, again, breakup into multiple states.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Australia was an unorganized territory occupied by neolithic technology aboriginals who were relatively easily displaced.

That's not going to be the case here. The population has agriculture, settled communities and a high degree of social organisation, capable of warfare and armed resistance. The population density is going to be many times greater.

Britain could pretty much take the whole of Australia because the place was so valueless no one else really wanted it, and the indigenous population was easy to shunt aside. Even so, the British couldn't find any better use for the place than as a penal colony, initially.

In the case of the Hawaii continent however, the population density is going to be much greater and the population is going to be more organized, and they'll have the advantage of a lot of coastline, a lot of population, and defense in depth. This is not likely to be a situation where the Europeans simply take over and displace the original population.

Hell, that didn't happen on the existing Polynesia of our time line. Polynesians population, language and culture continued to predominate locally, even under European colonial domination. Europeans could do little more than impose rule, and even that was contested locally.

Here, instead of scattered islands, you have an entire populated continent. That's a lot tougher to conquer, and even more difficult to colonize. Not unless you're assuming that the native population is even more vulnerable to disease than the American Indians.

The most likely model for European involvement would probably be India/South-East Asia. Peacemeal alliances with local states and city states, trading concessions and monopolies, Europeans taking different sides in local wars, lots of European weapons and technology shipped in.

India/South-East Asia found the first the Portugese and Dutch then the British and French duking it out in India, with the British being the ultimate winners, and the French and Portugese retaining enclaves. The Portugese and Dutch duking it out in Indonesia, with the Dutch winning out and the Portugese, British and Germans carving out little enclaves. The French dominating in Indochina. Spain in the Phillipines. Britatin in Australia. And China being a free for all.

The Polynesians colonized Hawaii in 500 AD and already your comparing it to India and China, places that have been colonized since ancient times? Even the American Indian was in North America for alot longer than that and it was no India or China. My feeling is that the Polynesians would be divided among many many tribes like the American Indians in North America. So my question is in what important ways are Polynesians different from North American Indians, and I don't mean by physical appearances or their root language. North American Indians were a bunch of nomadic tribes often at war with each other, they practised limited agriculture and their meat was usually obtained through hunting, I believe the Polynesians weren't much different than that, they were an Island seagoing culture that obtained much of their food through fishing. Now in a continental Hawaii, the Polynesians might adopt a culture that is much closer to the American Indian, or perhaps the central and south American Indians, not in language or culture perhaps, but in the way they obtain their food certainly. Now I don't believe Polynesians raised livestock before the Europeans made contact with them, they only brought themselves with they came to Hawaii. I think there might be some animals they might possibly domesticate. Do you think a flightless bird the size of a horse is within the range of possibility? How about the idea of bird riders? Birds are after all the closest living relatives of the dinosaurs, it seems reasonable to suppose that an isolated continent might evolve very large varieties of flightless birds. How about a "Tyranno-raptor" for example, basically a huge carnivorous bird that approaches the size of a T-Rex, though something that size would need some other type of prey than humans. I think Polynesians would deal with Tyranno-raptors by setting traps - that seems to be the easiest way to deal with such a large creature, if you could tangle up its legs and knock it off its feet, you can basically clud and spear it to death. Now if the Polynesians were on Hawaii for 1300 years, would they have had time to kill off all the continent's population of tyranno-raptors? would they even have conquered the entire continent is such a short span of time?

I think a one continent empire is rather boring, I think the colinization patterns would be more like the North American colonies, rather than a few representaitves selling opium and getting the natives to do all their labor for them.

It's possible that a single European power would dominate Hawaii. However, keep in mind that Hawaii's likely going to be a distant third on the list of colonial priorities. The first was India/Indonesia, in the 17th and 18th century. The second was China in the 18th and 19th centuries. Given its distance and relatively low (likely) economic value you'd likely see something more like the scramble for Africa or the Pacific in the late 19th century.

China and India are huge populous countries that existed long before Europeans ever got their, I'd say in the sense your talking about, the first European to "colonize" India was probably Alexander the Great, but he didn't colonize India in the American sense of the word. I don't really get a sense of Polynesian Hawaii being a really ancient culture like China or India, you realize of course that both Buddism and Hinduism are much older than Christianity, and China and India were never really British in the way that the North American colonies were.

Even if only a single colonial power rules, and its not clear or guaranteed that the Europeans would successfully take over, the pre-existing divisions are such that there's a good chance of fracture. After all, the Middle East, India and Africa all broke into a multitude of states, when they were originally contiguous colonial territories.

I think its likely that Hawaii would be colonized in the same era that Australia was, these are the last few continents to be discovered by Europeans, they would naturally want to colonize those land masses that are closest to them first unless..

Notice that the Hawaiian Mountain range parallels the Rockies in North America as if they were one time connected. Well, gold was discovered in California, what if more gold was found in Hawaii and another gold rush was triggered there, that would certianly encourage colonization by Europeans wouldn't it?, and what if vast oil deposits were later discovered there as well. Oil has been a mixed blessing to many native cultures as is gold, but that would certainly change things. We have to consider what resources might be found there.

 

[sahaidak]

Likely discoverers and explorers would be the Dutch, British and French in that order, through successive expeditions. Most likely the British would be the ones to define all the shorelines. But the Dutch are likely to find it first.

The Spanish or Portugese might encounter the most westerly outlying Islands, but unless there's real commercial potential, aren't likely to explore pointlessly.

But Hawaii (ITTL) would lie directly between Philippines and New Spain. How the Spanish could sail to Asia without running into the eighth continent?

 

[Penelope]

But Hawaii (ITTL) would lie directly between Philippines and New Spain. How the Spanish could sail to Asia without running into the eighth continent?

Look at my map. It's very possible that due to the new weather patterns that would occur, that Spanish Sailors would probably avoid the area due to rough seas, and wouldn't sail far north enough to find it. They would probably just encounter the outlying islands.

 

[DValdron]

But Hawaii (ITTL) would lie directly between Philippines and New Spain. How the Spanish could sail to Asia without running into the eighth continent?

Possible that they would. But people didn't sail as the crow flies, and as nearly as I can work out, the prevailing winds and currents would all be going in the wrong direction.